expanding the community and enhancing the experience: the...

© Association of Gazi Fore ign Language Teaching. All rights reserved. ISSN: 2146-1732

http://www.jltl.org/jltl/

The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2015–2, 54-73

Expanding the Community and Enhancing the Experience: The

Dual University Model and Web 2.0 Technologies in a Spanish

Community Service-Learning Course

Stephanie M. Knouse1 & Francisco Salgado-Robles2

Abstract While the pedagogy of community service-learning (CSL) in Spanish has been successfully implemented in the

United States for several decades, it is still common for instructors and students to encounter significant obstacles

that decrease its effectiveness, such as insufficient opportunities to produce the second language (L2) and a lack of

affective support. In the present study, a collaborative CSL course was designed to examine the degree to which a

cross-institutional endeavor could offset these commonly observed challenges. Under this model, 28 students from

two identical CSL in Spanish classes at two different institutions formed a community of practice (CoP) and

interacted via Web 2.0 technologies. Quantitative and qualitative analysis reveal that students reacted favorably

toward the inter-institutional endeavor and its accompanying online tasks. Specifically, students benefitted from

the guaranteed outlets to practice the L2 with their peers (i.e., blogging and Skype videoconferencing) and by

receiving constant encouragement from their classmates.

Keywords: blogging, CALL, communities of practice, language use, service-learning, Skype, Spanish, social

networking, Web 2.0 technologies

© Association of Gazi Foreign Language Teaching. All rights reserved

1. Introduction

Community service-learning (CSL), if implemented correctly, can be a transformative

pedagogical tool that enhances the learning of academic content and provides students with real world

experiences in K-16 settings. Especially in the past two decades, CSL has been integrated in almost all

academic disciplines in higher education in the United States, from the Arts and Humanities to Science

and Technology. Specifically with respect to post-secondary second language (L2) 3 Spanish classes,

many instructors have included CSL to offer students ample opportunities to apply their linguistic

knowledge in meaningful communicative situations. Other desirable outcomes, such as an increased

sense of civic responsibility and the formation of leadership skills, are observed in Spanish CSL classes

1 Furman University, e-mail: [email protected] 2 The College of Staten Island-City University of New York, e-mail: [email protected] 3 Even though in the field of Applied Linguistics “second language” (L2) and “foreign language” (FL) are used to refer to two

different ideas (see Faerch, Haastrup, & Phillipson, 1984), here we do not consider it necessary to make such a distinction; we

will use L2 as an abbreviation for both terms.

ðə dʒərnəl əv læŋgwədʒ titʃɪŋ ænd lərnɪŋ

J L T L dɛdəketəd tu haj kwɑləti risərtʃ ɪn əplayd

lɪŋgwɪstɪks

Knouse, S. M., & Salgado-Robles, F., The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2015–2, 54-73

55

as well. Even though it is argued that CSL can be an extremely effective practice in L2 Spanish4, it is also

imperative to recognize that there are substantial obstacles to overcome to make the experience worth

its while on the course level. Therefore, the present research explores if CSL instructors can offset some

of the potentially problematic aspects of a Spanish CSL course and enhance students’ CSL experience

through the creation of a community of practice (CoP).

To begin, the prevalence of CSL in higher education and the benefits and challenges of CSL in

post-secondary Spanish courses will be discussed. The theoretical underpinnings of CoPs will be

presented and, most importantly, they will be connected to the proposed course structure, labeled the

“Dual University Model.” The collaborative activities via Web 2.0 and other computer-assisted

language learning (CALL) technologies that make up the Dual University Model will be explained in

detail—so readers have the tools to replicate the course, should they wish—, and qualitative and

quantitative evidence will be provided to show how the model was successful and where improvements

need to be made.

2. Advantages of Community Service-Learning

Jacoby (1996) explained that CSL is “experiential education that engages students in activities

that address human and community needs together with structured opportunities” (as cited in Tilley-

Lubbs, Raschio, Jorge, & López, 2005, p. 161). The defining characteristic that sets CSL apart from other

types of volunteer or internship endeavors is that students’ service experiences are tied to the academic

content of an on-campus course or curriculum (Giles, Honnet, & Migliore, 1991). CSL has arisen from

the tenets of experiential education and constructivist theories that advocate for learning through first-

hand discovery (Furco, 2001). In the past few decades many post-secondary instructors in the United

States have included CSL into their classes (Sánchez-López, 2013), since this type of hands-on pedagogy

provides students the opportunity to reflect on their involvement in their service, facilitating a deeper

understanding academic content and community awareness.

Regarding CSL in higher education, Bowley and Meeropool (2003) claimed that, although there

was significant lag time between the introduction of Dewey’s (1938) Model of Experiential Learning

and the inclusion of CSL in the post-secondary arena, the presence of CSL is now undeniable and

abundant in the United States. In fact, Learn and Serve America (2011) reported that, based on statistics

from 2009-2010, more than half of community colleges and approximately one-quarter of all universities

integrate CSL in different academic curricula.

The incorporation of CSL in Spanish curricula in the United States follows similar trends

observed in other disciplines in higher education. The number of Spanish programs integrating CSL has

been steadily increasing since the mid-1990s and, notably, the number of Spanish courses with a CSL

component has skyrocketed in the past decade (see Pak, 2013). Supported by quantitative results of an

American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese survey, Hellebrandt and Jorge (2013)

adamantly affirmed that community engagement, which includes CSL, has been a “growing presence

in Spanish classes” and there is presently “significant activity and interest within our ranks” (p. 206-

207).

Regarding the effectiveness of CSL in Spanish classes, many CSL practitioners have reported

numerous and diverse benefits of the incorporation of CSL in a Spanish program. Specifically, it has

been shown that CSL can facilitate the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning (ACTFL, 2006)—

especially the “Communities” and “Connections” goal areas (Abbott & Lear, 2010; Hellebrandt & Jorge,

2013; Lafford, 2012; Lear & Abbott, 2008; Weldon & Trautmann, 2003), as well as proficiency gains in L2

reading, writing, and speaking (Malkin, 2010). Likewise, it has been argued that the incorporation of

4 While many post-secondary instructors have increasingly adopted CSL pedagogy, there are scholars that

discuss the limitations of CSL in higher education (see Butin, 2006).


56

CSL in Spanish language classes improves students’ communicative competence5 (Barreneche, 2011;

Grabois, 2007; Mullaney, 1999; Navarro, 2012; Olazagasti-Segovia, 2004; Overfield, 1997; Salgado-

Robles, 2014), attitudes toward Hispanic cultures and the learning of Spanish as an academic subject

(Beebe & De Costa, 1993; Long, 2003; Morris 2001a, 2001b; Mullaney, 1999; Overfield, 1997; Pak, 2013;

Varas, 2005; Varona, 1999; Wehling, 1999; Weldon & Trautmann, 2003; Zapata, 2011), willingness to

communicate in Spanish (Pellettieri, 2011), and cultural awareness (Malkin, 2010; Morris, 2001a, 2001b;

Zapata, 2011). Furthermore, students’ sense of civic responsibility (Beebe & De Costa, 1993; Long, 2003;

Rabin, 2009; Weldon & Trautmann, 2003), as well as their sense of self (Carracelas-Juncal, 2013), can

blossom throughout a CSL experience. While there are several positive outcomes, it is also necessary to

consider the obstacles of CSL in Spanish.

3. Challenges of Community Service-Learning

The above literature review highlights the many advantages of integrating CSL in Spanish

courses. Even if an instructor invests tremendous effort in setting up fruitful relationships, inevitably

there will be problems to resolve along the way, especially during the first iteration of a Spanish CSL

course (see Ebacher, 2013 regarding how to establish a CSL program). It is attested that any course with

a CSL component carries its own host of challenges, such as establishing and retaining viable

community partnerships with which the instructor can cultivate a “reciprocal relationship” (Long &

Macián, 2008, p. 173), advocating and applying for the necessary financial and institutional support it

takes to launch a CSL program (Barreneche & Ramos-Flores, 2013), and the extra time commitment for

students and teachers alike (Montooth & Fritz, 2006). Anticipated obstacles such as these can deter some

faculty members from integrating CSL in their courses, despite the overwhelming evidence of the

effectiveness of the pedagogy (Abes, Jackson, & Jones, 2002).

In the CSL literature, studies that focus on the challenges of a CSL program are scarce (Yusop

& Correia, 2013); this could be due to the desire of practitioners to emphasize the effectiveness of the

pedagogy and to recount their success stories. Yet, the research should highlight the problems faced in

CSL so that potential adopters are provided with an accurate picture of what CSL entails and these

obstacles can be taken into account during the planning stages and throughout the CSL experience to

ensure success for all involved. Two challenges that were of focus in the present investigation were (1)

an inappropriate use of the target language (TL) and (2) affective obstacles.

3.1. Inappropriate use of the target language

Since a common goal of CSL in any L2 is to expose students to native speaker (NS) input and

meaningful conversation in the TL, instructors must establish partnerships with community

organizations that can provide appropriate linguistic opportunities for students. In the case of Spanish

CSL, instructors must not assume that students will routinely use the TL simply because an organization

serves the local Hispanic community. Community partners often need students who can speak both

English and Spanish and who are knowledgeable about Hispanic cultures; yet, students use English to

carry out the majority of their on-site duties. If students expect to frequently speak or write in Spanish

at their service and then do not, they could become frustrated that they are not utilizing these skills.

Along the same vein, and as explained by Lear and Abbott (2009), if an instructor neglects to

appropriately inform community partners of students’ linguistic abilities or course objectives,

community partners could either overestimate or underestimate students’ language skills; this

“misalignment” could potentially place students in a difficult position in which they are either

linguistically unqualified to carry out on-site tasks, or their skills are drastically underutilized. This

misunderstanding can cause disappointment or dissatisfaction from community partners if students’

5 Communicative competence is defined as the speaker’s ability to use and understand an L2 appropriately. This

includes grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980).


57

language proficiency is not what was expected or desired. Therefore, a candid discussion with

community partners regarding their specific needs, students’ linguistic proficiency, the amount of

Spanish required of students, and course objectives is warranted to ensure that all parties understand

the expectations from the outset of the CSL experience (Bloom, 2008). Even if this discussion takes place,

it is still possible for community partners to overestimate the amount of Spanish that students will use

during the semester. Consequently, along with regular communication with community partners

regarding students’ performance, it is wise to integrate supplementary activities into the curriculum in

order to provide students with guaranteed outlets to produce the L2 and to prepare them for real-world

communicative situations.

3.2. Affective challenges

A CSL course differs from other academic experiences in many ways, especially on the affective

level for participants. CSL can be a life-changing, positive endeavor for students, but it also takes them

out of their comfort zones and can cause a range of emotions. Given that students are in learning

environments beyond the confines of the classroom, this unfamiliar academic context can make students

feel anxious. CSL courses are also open-ended in nature, which can provoke feelings of resentment or

frustration, since many students prefer concrete, traditional academic experiences (Jumpstart Service-

Learning Resource Guide, n.d.). For example, in one CSL course, it was observed that CSL students

expressed intense emotions during class meetings, intra-group conflicts arose when students worked

collaboratively on service projects, and one student developed health problems due to the stress from

the class (Yusop & Correia, 2013). While students’ initial negative reactions were often the source of

positive, life-altering lessons, the instructors also recognized the importance of preparing for and

designing strategies to handle students’ emotional struggles throughout the semester.

Moreover, since many students are working with community organizations for the first time,

they have not had a chance to develop the professional skills required of them. They must face real-

world problems that do not have readily available solutions, and they encounter unexpected tasks on-

site (Morgridge Center for Public Service, 2012). Students’ underdeveloped professional skills can

likewise cause difficult relationships and tensions between them and their project supervisors, which

can result in added stress (Jumpstart Service-Learning Resource Guide, n.d.). Due to the demands of

CSL, students would benefit from an additional level of affective support during this new academic and

professional experience. To address these specific challenges, the authors integrated CoP theory and

CSL through CALL and Web 2.0 technologies, all of which will be described in the following sections.

4. Communities of Practice and Web 2.0 Technologies

To intercept the obstacles of CSL in Spanish, a CoP perspective (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger,

1998) was adopted in the present investigation. A CoP is a group of individuals that “share a concern

or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger,

2013, p. 1). In order for a group to be considered a true CoP, all members must (1) possess a common

domain, or base, of knowledge, (2) create a community through discussions and reciprocal assistance, and

(3) are engaged in a practice, or activity, that unities them (Wenger, 2013). An individual can be involved

in multiple CoPs simultaneously and in varying degrees, ranging from peripheral to central

participation (Wenger, 1998). While the concept of “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave &

Wenger, 1991) is not incorporated in the CoP perspective adopted in the present study, “shared repertoire,

mutual engagement, and joint enterprise [emphasis in the original]” (Van Benthuysen, 2007, p. 120) were

the critical components of the authors’ working definition of CoPs.

Lave and Wenger’s initial discussion of CoP revolved around how non-academic, organically-

occurring communities constructed knowledge through social activity and group membership

(Haneda, 2006). Since the advent of CoPs, many scholars have applied the foundations of the authors’

ideas to a broad range of academic disciplines and contexts, and L2 learning is no exception (see Haneda,


58

2006 and Van Benthuysen, 2007). A CoP perspective has been utilized in different areas of L2 learning

and teaching scholarship, such as L2 scholarly writing (e.g., Flowerdew, 2000), the construction of L2

identity (e.g., Morita, 2004; Toohey, 1998), and language teacher preparation (e.g., Fraga-Cañadas, 2011).

Not all academic CoPs have to meet in person. In fact, with readily available CALL and Web

2.0 technologies, various online L2 CoPs are emerging. For the past few decades CALL and Web 2.0

applications have been utilized in language learning and instruction, so that learners are provided with

input-rich environments and given the opportunity to interact in and produce the L2, which are all

critical ingredients for L2 acquisition to occur (Lord & Harington, 2013). These tools are now being

employed to create additional spaces for L2 CoPs to develop. As Wang and Vásquez (2012) affirmed,

“[the] results of existing [L2] studies have found that Web 2.0 technologies offer language learners the

potential for a collaboration-oriented and community-based learning environment” (p. 413, emphasis

added).

Consequently, L2 scholars have begun to investigate how CoP theory and Web 2.0 tools can

complement one another in order to capitalize on the cognitive and social benefits of both. For instance,

Bouyssi (2009) detailed how a CoP evolved among French and German students through

videoconferencing. He claimed that this web-based tool facilitated the transfer of intercultural

competence and gave the members of the CoP multiple opportunities for L2 practice. In addition, Lord

and Harrington (2013) explored if an online CoP could help students acquire native-like phones in L2

Spanish. While the quantitative results revealed that the gains of the experimental group (students

involved in a CoP) did not differ significantly from the control group (students not involved in a CoP),

the authors concluded that the online CoP was greatly valued by student participants and merited

further exploration. The present study seeks to contribute to the growing discussion of the role of online

CoPs, CALL, and Web 2.0 tools in L2 learning and teaching and, in the following section, a description

will be provided of how the authors modified a traditional CSL in Spanish course by fully integrating

these perspectives and resources.

5. Traditional CSL in Spanish versus the Dual University Model

In a traditional CSL in Spanish course, the CSL component has been incorporated in language

classes of varying levels (e.g., Barreneche, 2011; Bloom, 2008; Pellettieri, 2011; Petrov, 2013; Zapata, 2011)

as well as upper-division topic classes on translation (e.g., Ebacher, 2013), Hispanic cultures (e.g., Varas,

1999), and Business Spanish (e.g., Lear & Abbott, 2008), to name a few. Typically, a sole instructor

designs the CSL in Spanish class and teaches one group of students. Students attend regular class

meetings and complete a predetermined amount of hours at their service placements. Since reflection is

a vital aspect of CSL (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984), Spanish CSL participants normally interact with their

cohort and instructor through conversations and journaling in order to process their experiences and to

gain meaning from them. In addition to reviewing what community service entails, topics of discussion

in a CSL in Spanish course might revolve around real-world use of the TL, Hispanic cultures, and issues

relevant to the local Hispanic community. Even though the traditional format of CSL in Spanish is often

quite successful, the effectiveness of the course largely depends on external factors beyond the

instructor’s control, such as service placements and specific individuals involved in community

organizations. In other words, other than the careful selection of service placements, typically there are

no safety nets in place in a traditional CSL in Spanish class to offset the commonly observed challenges.

For instance, what happens when students do not employ the TL in the way they had hoped at their

service or if their placements fall short in providing them enough direct contact with NSs of Spanish?

Aside from journaling and debriefing, what strategies are in place to help students process emotionally

difficult service placements, as well as those experiencing additional levels of stress and frustration with

CSL?

When the present authors were preparing to teach a Spanish CSL course for the first time at

their respective institutions, it was a priority to avoid the pitfalls of CSL in Spanish and provide another

level of educational and affective support for students. It was also important to offer students a broader


59

perspective of Hispanic cultures and an opportunity to learn more about service work by connecting

them with CSL participants in different geographic locations. Consequently, two professors created a

CoP6 and designed a collaborative CSL in Spanish course using what is now labeled the “Dual

University Model.”7 Under this structure, two Spanish CSL classes were connected through

communicative activities, mainly carried out through Web 2.0 technologies, in order to provide students

with guaranteed opportunities for meaningful conversational exchanges in Spanish and an additional

community to help them throughout their journey in CSL.

It was of great interest to examine the effectiveness of the Dual University Model, since other

cross-institutional endeavors that involved CoPs, CALL, and/or Web 2.0 technologies had yielded

positive cognitive and social results (e.g., Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Arnold, Ducate, Lomicka, & Lord,

2005; Lomicka & Lord, 2004). With this in mind, the following research questions (RQs) guided the

present investigation:

RQ1: How does participating in a CoP impact students’ perceptions of their oral and

written abilities in the TL?

RQ2: How does a CoP in CSL in Spanish support students with the emotional

component of the experience?

RQ3: How do students rate the effectiveness of the Dual University Model and its

accompanying activities?

6. Methodology

6.1. Participants and description of “Spanish Service Learning”

The participating universities—one in Greenville, South Carolina, which will be referred to as

“U1,” and the other in Lexington, Kentucky, which will be referred to as “U2”—are located in

metropolitan areas with extensive Hispanic communities. In fact, the population of Hispanics in both

South Carolina and Kentucky grew tremendously from 2000-2010—147.9% and 121.6%, respectively—

and these states were among those that experienced the largest increase of Hispanic residents during

the past decade (Census, 2011). The institutions offered an identical Spanish CSL course in spring 2012

entitled “Spanish Service Learning.” A total of 28 students were enrolled: 13 at U1 in Greenville and 15

at U2 in Lexington. Both classes shared a similar L2 profile, as students’ Spanish proficiency ranged

from intermediate to advanced levels. The vast majority of this group had learned Spanish in a formal

context; only 2 of the 28 students had acquired the TL in an informal, familiar setting. All 15 students at

U2 were Spanish majors or minors; at U1, 8 students were majoring in Spanish and 5 were pursuing

other degrees.8

Both sections of “Spanish Service Learning” shared a common syllabus, used the same

textbook—Comunidades: Más allá del aula by Abbott (2010)—, and completed the same readings and

6 It is believed that students participating in the Dual University Model evolved into a CoP: they all had

knowledge of the Spanish language and Hispanic cultures (domain), they frequently interacted via Web 2.0

technologies for support (community), and all were involved in CSL projects in which they communicated in

Spanish and worked with regional Hispanic communities (practice). To clarify, members of the CoP of the present

project consisted of the students and professors from the two collaborating classes. Even though a sense of

community developed between these participants, community partners, and members of the Hispanic

community, the latter two groups did not participate in the virtual activities and, subsequently, were not

considered a part of the CoP. 7 The present authors created the label “Dual University Model.” Nonetheless, we do not make the claim that this

is the first time two groups from different institutions have worked collaboratively together through computer-

mediated communication. 8 Although U1 offers majors in Spanish, French, German Studies, Japanese Studies, and Chinese Studies, U1 does

not offer minors in any L2.


60

assignments. The communal learning objectives of the class were as follows: (1) to become familiar with

the local Hispanic communities, (2) to reflect on what was learned while serving the community, (3) to

improve spoken and written Spanish skills through real-world interactions, and (4) to collaborate with

the partner institution in order to construct a deeper understanding of Hispanic cultures in the United

States. During on-campus class meetings, readings related to the Hispanic community were discussed,

which included articles on immigration, healthcare, political and social programs, English as a Second

Language (ESL), and other educational programs. Students also examined the effects of CSL on the

acquisition of L2 Spanish, the linguistic features and cultural norms of the local Spanish-speaking

communities, and the different registers of spoken and written Spanish. Importantly, there was class

time devoted to the sharing of students’ experiences at their services; all of these debriefing sessions

were conducted in the TL.

Table 1.

Community partners in Greenville, South Carolina and Lexington, Kentucky

Type of organization Greenville Lexington

ESL or Spanish-immersion

programs

Greenville Literacy Association Maxwell Spanish Immersion

Elementary School

Dunbar High School

Village Branch: Lexington Public

Library

Community organizations or

Hispanic outreach programs

Girl Scouts/After School Program

Hispanic Alliance

Ashland Henry Clay Estate

Center for Family and Community

Services

Mary Queen of the Holy Rosary

Church

Hospitals Language Services at Greenville

Memorial Hospital

Samaritan’s Touch Clinic

University of Kentucky Hospital

Wellness programs Girls on the Run

Safe Kids Upstate

YMCA: Salsa, Sabor, y Salud

The heart of “Spanish Service Learning” were the service experiences in which students

participated off-campus. A week before the semester began, students were sent a list of the established

communities partners via email; they selected the projects that most interested them and ranked them

according to their top three preferences. Students had a choice of working with a variety of

organizations, such as hospitals, ESL programs, Hispanic outreach non-profits, and wellness

organizations. Similar community partners were established in both cities, so students could compare

and contrast service experiences when collaborating cross-institutionally (Table 1). Each student was

required to complete a minimum of 30 hours of community service work during the semester; many

surpassed this total by the end of the term. Students kept track of their service hours; on-site supervisors

verified the accuracy of students’ activity and submitted an evaluation of each student’s performance

at the end of the semester. Throughout the term, the instructors stayed in touch with all community

partners to ensure that students were performing according to the supervisors’ expectations. All

necessary adjustments were addressed immediately.


61

6.2. Data

The data evaluated in the investigation were extracted from three sources: (1) student work

produced in the collaborative activities, as described in the section below, (2) instructors’ observations

of the course, and (3) the results of an end-of-course survey administered by the instructors. These data

were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively, as explained in the “Results” section.

6.3. Collaborative activities with Web 2.0 technologies

The class components described above that were implemented in the Spanish CSL course could

have been carried out without a partnering institution. However, the instructors wanted join their

classes through various forms of Web 2.0 technologies, so students could find another source of

linguistic, academic, and affective support, as explained above. These collaborative online activities

became the essence of the Dual University Model and, to the authors’ knowledge, cross-institutional

collaboration had never been implemented before in a Spanish CSL course. The instructors carefully

selected and tested each technological tool prior to the course and, given the importance of learner

guidance for successful implementation of instructional technology (Hubbard, 2004), students were

explicitly trained on how to use all of these resources at the beginning of the semester. In the following

sections, more detail is provided regarding how the interactive tasks via Web 2.0 tools were integrated

in “Spanish Service Learning.”9

6.3.1. Classroom 2.0

Social networking sites (SNSs), such as Facebook, Ning, or MySpace, have generally been used

for non-educational, informal social purposes. Conversely, the education-based SNS Classroom 2.0

allows users to develop an online community of shared academic interests and provides students with

the opportunity to interact with their peers and professors through the use of blogs, videos, or text-

based chat. Students at both universities opened a Classroom 2.0 account, became “colleagues” with

peers at their own institution, those from the partner university, and the professors. They were also

required to join the class group “Spanish Community Service Learning” (see Figure 1).

All course information was housed on the Spanish CSL group page.10 The professors changed

the settings from English to Spanish, so that the entire group page was in the TL; students were

instructed to do the same on their individual pages. In addition to serving as the central meeting place

for all members of this CoP, Classroom 2.0 facilitated synchronous and asynchronous computer-

mediated communication (CMC) between the two universities. That is, students and professors could

communicate through instant messaging, as well as through individual and group emails.

These features of Classroom 2.0 illustrate the potential for this online multi-user virtual environment to

help schools from different geographical areas to connect.

9 Readers are welcome to email the authors for copies of the materials (e.g., blog prompts, grading criteria, digital

video guidelines) used in the course. 10 Another Web 2.0 tool used in this course was a wiki that students created to highlight important details of their

community organizations. This activity is not included as part of the Dual University Model, as it did not feature

collaboration between the two institutions.


62

Figure 1. Screenshot for “Spanish Community Service Learning” on Classroom 2.0

6.3.2. Digital videos

Once all of the students had joined the Spanish CSL page on Classroom 2.0, the instructors

wanted to formally introduce the groups to one another. Since conflicting schedules made it difficult

for a live conversation to take place using synchronous CMC, each CSL class briefly introduced

themselves in Spanish via a digital video that was uploaded to YouTube; the links were made available

on the Classroom 2.0 page so all students could view the partner class’ recordings. In addition, students

were instructed to create their own individual digital videos for homework, so their cross-institutional

partners knew more about them before beginning the collaborative online activities. In the TL, students

created a 3-5-minute digital video in which they introduced themselves, discussed their academic

background, explained why they enrolled in Spanish CSL, and what their goals were for the semester.

These videos were also uploaded to the class’ YouTube account and the links were posted on the

Classroom 2.0 Spanish CSL page. To ensure that students created videos with appropriate content, the

professors provided detailed instructions on how to complete the assignment using the communal

YouTube account.

6.3.3. Reflection blogs

One collaborative activity in which a significant exchange of ideas was observed was the

reflection blogs. Since superficial learning can result from a lack of “rigorous reflection” (Jumpstart

Service-Learning Resource Guide, n.d.), the blogs were a crucial element of the course that helped


63

students reflect on what they encountered at their service placements. Students completed a total of six

blog postings on their individual Classroom 2.0 pages. They also opened a Dropbox account in order to

submit Word files of these reflections as a backup copy. Each blog entry had to be between 350-400

words and written in Spanish. Subsequently, students were instructed to leave two comments of 50-100

words each on their classmates’ original postings: one for a classmate at the home institution and

another for a classmate at the partner institution. The entries were evaluated on content, vocabulary,

and grammatical accuracy.

6.3.4. Skype videoconferences

In order to share service experiences and practice oral skills in the L2, students participated in

monthly Skype videoconferences with their peers from the collaborating university. Students were

paired based on their linguistic ability and community service placements. At the beginning of the

semester, students were asked to download the free software from Skype.com if they did not have the

program already installed on their computer. They then set up a Skype account, selected a username,

and uploaded a profile picture.11 Since the instructors wanted to review the conversations, students

recorded an audio file of each videoconference using Audacity, another open-source program available

via Internet.

During the Skype videoconferences, students spoke with one another in the TL for at least 30

minutes. They were encouraged to use newly acquired vocabulary terms and grammatical structures,

as well as circumlocution techniques. Conversation topics and due dates were posted on the Classroom

2.0 Spanish CSL group page well in advance and students arranged when they would “meet” online to

complete the oral task. The discussion topics were ones that facilitated reflection on the impact of CSL,

their particular service experience, and Hispanic cultures. As with the reflection blogs, the Skype

videoconferences were graded on quality of content, vocabulary, and grammatical accuracy. Students

submitted digital copies of the conversations through their Dropbox accounts, so the professors could

review the audio files.

7. Results

7.1. Student learning outcomes: Gains in perceived L2 ability

In this section, the first research question (RQ1)—How does participating in a CoP impact

students’ perceptions of their oral and written abilities in the TL?—is addressed. Recall that one of the

rationales for creating the CoP was to provide students with guaranteed outlets to produce the L2,

which also connects to Learning Objective #3, or improving spoken and written skills in Spanish. While

the study of gains in communicative competence or other linguistic features is beyond the scope of this

particular investigation, assessing students’ perceptions of improvements in oral and written skills was

of great interest. For years scholars have recognized the importance of learners’ perceived L2

competence, as this internal factor has a direct impact on learner motivation, attitudes about the L2, and

willingness to communicate in the L2 (see Gardner, 1985; MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998).

Specifically, learners with greater perceived abilities in the L2 are more predisposed to engage in the TL

and report using the TL more frequently in a variety of communicative contexts. Thus, if students in

“Spanish Service Learning” observed an increase in their linguistic competence after participating in

the CoP and CSL, this will help them become more successful and active language learners.

To examine RQ1, transcripts of the third Skype videoconference were analyzed. During these

conversations, which were completed by the end of the third month of the course, all students discussed

how their spoken and written Spanish had improved, stayed the same, or declined. Table 2 presents

11 With the recent introduction of Google Hangouts, there is now another all-inclusive option for

videoconferences and recording capabilities that is free-of-charge.


64

students’ perceptions of L2 gains in oral and written production. Regarding spoken skills, the majority

of students (74%) expressed that they were able make noteworthy improvements by that point in the

semester.

Table 2.

Students’ perceptions of L2 improvements after three months of CSL12

N = 27

Major

improvements

n (%)

Little

improvements

n (%)

No

improvements

n (%)

No response

n (%)

Oral production 20 (74%) 3 (11%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%)

Written production 6 (22%) 0 (0%) 2 (7%) 19 (70%)

They specified that their L2 speaking abilities had developed in a variety of ways, which

included gains in confidence (43%), an expanded lexicon (29%), better pronunciation (10%), better use

of grammatical structures (10%), and more fluency (10%). Below are select excerpts from the Skype

conversations that highlight these areas of progress:

Siento que ahora hablo con más fluidez. […] La comunicación con los hablantes nativos me sirve

para darme cuenta del tipo de registro que necesito usar en cada contexto.13 (U2)

‘I feel that now I speak more fluently. […] Communicating with native speakers helps

me realize the register that I need to use in each context.’

Creo que mi vocabulario ha expandido un poco especialmente porque con la comunidad que

colaboro hay palabras específicas. También las personas con quienes interactúo hablan sólo en

español. (U1)

‘I think that my vocabulary has expanded a bit especially because with the community

that I collaborate there are specific words. Also the people that I interact with only

speak in Spanish.’

Me siento mucho más cómoda cuando hablo español. Me siento más cómoda cuando hablo con

los pacientes en el hospital, con mis compañeros en clase, etc. La confianza es la cosa más

importante para mí. A veces la gramática puede no estar muy perfecta, pero mi confianza ahora

es mucho más alta. (U2)

‘I feel much more comfortable when I speak Spanish. I feel most comfortable when I

speak with patients in the hospital, with my classmates, etc. Confidence is the thing that

is most important to me. Sometimes the grammar isn’t very perfect, but my confidence

now is much higher.’

While it is not a linguistic feature of L2 speech per se, gains in learners’ self-confidence in L2

speaking skills emerged as a salient trend in the data. Given that it was the first time that many of these

students utilized Spanish for real-world purposes during a sustained period of time, they were able to

acquire more knowledge on how to communicate effectively in the L2, and working in the community

12 One student did not participate in the third Skype videoconference. 13 All student excerpts in the TL are unaltered, despite the presence of non-targetlike forms.


65

was critical in facilitating these experiences. Students also recognized that class participation, blog

reflections, and Skype videoconferences activities helped them practice speaking in Spanish; this

preparation subsequently bolstered confidence levels.

He notado que mi español está mejorando. Las interacciones con mis compañeros, mis profesores

son en español y son muy importantes. Esto me ha ayudado para reforzar mi español. (U2)

‘I have noticed that my Spanish is improving. The interactions with my classmates, my

professors are in Spanish and are very important. This has helped me reinforce my

Spanish.’

En mi opinión, el escribir en español me ayuda a hablar en español, por ejemplo, los blogs. (U2)

‘In my opinion, writing in Spanish helps me speak in Spanish, for example, the blogs.’

While students attributed gains in confidence in L2 oral production more to the CSL experience

than to the collaborative activities, it appears that these two components worked in tandem to heighten

students’ linguistic awareness, perceived ability, and self-assurance.

In terms of written improvements, as indicated in Table 2, most students did not address the

question during their Skype videoconferences and elected to focus on spoken production. Perhaps this

was due to the open-ended nature of the conversations and that speaking in the L2 is particularly

challenging for non-native speakers (NNSs). Yet, of those students who noticed an improvement in their

written abilities in Spanish, some recognized that the course’s collaborative activities played a central

role in achieving these gains.

En mi español hablado uso palabras que conozco y busco otras palabras en la conversación si no

recuerdo la palabra exacta. Mi español escrito también ha mejorado a través de los blogs, las

tareas, etc. (U1)

‘In my spoken Spanish I use words that I know and I look for other words in the

conversation if I don’t remember the exact word. My written Spanish also has improved

through [completing] the blogs, homeworks, etc.’

After analyzing the conversations, it is clear that there were a variety of experiences that shaped

students’ perceptions of how their oral and written abilities did or did not advance. This is logical, since

students served in diverse organizations (Table 1) that required different productive skills: some

students exclusively translated official documents from English to Spanish, while others used the L2 to

answer phone calls or to coach elementary-school-aged girls. These placements also varied regarding

how much students interacted in the L2 with NSs or NNSs; some students even lamented during the

semester that they wished they used the TL more at their services. While it was not feasible to control

for exactly how students’ linguistic skills would develop or be utilized in the various community

organizations, it was possible to provide all students with regular opportunities to enhance their

(perceptions of) oral and written production through the collaborative Web 2.0 activities. This was one

of the principle motives for establishing a CoP through the Dual University Model.

7.2. Student learning outcomes: Affective support

To address the second research (RQ2)—How does a CoP in CSL in Spanish support students

with the emotional component of the experience?—data from students’ reflection blogs and Skype

videoconferences were analyzed for trends. To remind the reader, another goal of the cross-institutional

CoP was to support students with the extra emotional demands of the CSL in Spanish experience (see

Learning Objective #4). The analysis revealed that throughout their interactions using Web 2.0 tools,

students from both institutions were extremely supportive of one another, even though they had never

met in person. They exchanged anecdotes, offered advice and positive reinforcement, and


66

commiserated when necessary. For example, Melanie (U1) expressed a lack of confidence in her spoken

Spanish during one of the Skype conversations; yet, Jack (U2) reassured her.14

M: No creo que mis habilidades han mejorado. Y, por eso, tengo un poquito de confianza. Pero,

todavía, no mucho. (U1)

‘I don’t think my abilities have improved. And, for that reason, I have a little bit of

confidence. But, still, not a lot.’

J: Pero, recuerdas que es la tercera charla conmigo, sigues charlando media hora en español, es

algo importante, ¿no? […] Has hablado conmigo dos o tres veces, tienes que pensar que tu nivel

del español es mejor porque ahora mismo estás hablando y pensando en español. (U2)

‘But, remember that this is third chat with me, you continue to speak for a half an hour

in Spanish, it’s something important, right? […] You have spoken with me two or three

times, you have to think that your level of Spanish is better because now you are

speaking and thinking in Spanish.’

Not all exchanges were to give encouragement during difficult times. Students often recounted

moments when they felt proud during their service experiences. Below is an example of Kelly’s positive

encounter that she shared in a reflection blog, and Alice’s subsequent response.

K: En mi opinión, la práctica de hoy fue la mejor de todas que hemos tenido. Estaba lleno de la

alegría, la risa, y el aprendizaje. Estaba caminando de mi coche a la escuela, cuando de repente

oí mi nombre. Dos niñas […] estaban corriendo y gritando. Por un momento, me preocupé que

algo malo ocurrió. Realmente, ¡estaban muy emocionadas de que estuviera allí! Corrieron hacia

mi y en mis brazos. Era la manera perfecta de empezar la práctica. Me sentí contenta. Entré el

cuarto donde estaban las otras niñas y todas dijeron que estaban felices de verme. La semana

pasada, cuestionaba si las chicas se gustaban las entrenadoras y mi. Debido a este evento, sé la

respuesta. […] Además de eso, pienso que ellas le gustaban la práctica. Hablamos de la

cooperación y hicimos tres actividades para practicarla. Me encanté ver que ellas estaban

aprendido de funcionar como un grupo. Fue un momento muy especial. (U1)

‘In my opinion, today’s practice was the best that we’ve had. It was full of happiness,

laughter, and learning. I was walking from my car to the school, where all of a sudden

I heard my name. Two girls […] were running and screaming. For a moment, I got

worried that something bad happened. Really, they were excited that I was there! They

ran toward me and in my arms. It was the perfect way to start practice. I was happy. I

walked in the room where all of the other girls were and all said they were happy to

see me. The week before, I questioned whether or not the girls liked the coaches and

me. From this event, I know the answer. […] Beside that, I think that they liked practice.

We spoke about cooperation and we did three activities to practice it. I loved seeing

that they were learning how to function as a group. It was a very special moment.’

A: Tu última visita parecía ser muy divertido. […] Creo que es maravilloso que se puede hacer

bromas y disfrutar de su tiempo como voluntario. […] Buena suerte con su experiencia. (U2)

‘Your last visit seemed to be very fun. […] I think that it’s marvelous that you can joke

and enjoy your time at your volunteer site. […] Good luck with your experience.’

The reflection blogs and Skype videoconferences became a meeting place for students to

celebrate and express frustration together. In the following section, students’ feedback on the Dual

14 All names were changed to protect students’ anonymity.


67

University Model provides further evidence that they appreciated the support from their CoP

throughout the semester in “Spanish Service Learning.”

7.3. Student feedback of the Dual University Model

To answer the third research question (RQ3)—How do students rate the effectiveness of the

Dual University Model and its accompanying activities?—participants from both institutions were

asked to complete an anonymous, 10-question survey about the Dual University Model and the

collaborative assignments via Web 2.0 tools at the end of the course (Appendix). Students provided

answers to 6 open-ended questions and 1 yes-or-no question; likewise, they rated 3 statements about

the course activities using a 5-point Likert scale, which ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly

agree. The quantitative findings are corroborated by the students’ open-ended responses. To discover if

there were differences in ratings for blogging, Skype videoconferences, or the effectiveness of the CoP

between the students from U1 and U2, independent samples t-tests were performed. The results showed

no statistically significant differences (ns.) between the two groups (Table 3). Furthermore, by

examining the mean ratings of each activity, it appears that, overall, both groups benefitted from the

cross-institutional collaboration; however, students offered specific suggestions on how to improve

upon certain aspects of the methodology, which will be explained below.

Table 3.

Means and standard deviations of students’ ratings for the collaborative activities and the Dual

University model by institution15

Activity Group

U1 U2

M SD n M SD n t p

Blogging 3.54 .481 12 3.67 .724 15 -.509 ns.

Skype 3.50 .798 12 3.40 .507 15 .397 ns.

CoP

collaboration 3.75 .754 12 3.93 .799 15 -.607 ns.

The first item in Table 3 focused on students’ opinions of collaborative blogging. There

appeared to be a sense of satisfaction among both groups of students (Table 3). In their open-ended

comments, students mentioned the following benefits of blogging: “We could see each other’s

perspectives of the services. I enjoyed seeing different writing styles,” “Sharing experiences [through

blogging] helped us see the ‘big picture’ goals of the class,” “[The blogs helped me] practice writing in

Spanish,” and “[Blogging] prepared students for class discussion.” Some drawbacks that students

highlighted were that “[The blog] questions felt redundant,” and the activity was “[time] consuming

and overwhelming.” While there is room for improvement, students valued the blogging activity in that

it facilitated reflection on CSL (see Learning Objective #2), created opportunities for L2 use, and

prepared students for in-class conversation.

Students’ evaluation of the Skype videoconferences also reveals positive attitudes toward the

activity (Table 3); yet, these ratings were not as favorable as those for the blogging activity or CoP

collaboration. Students’ open-ended responses provide more insight on their assessment of the task.

Many participants affirmed that the Skype activity was beneficial mainly because they were producing

the TL in a real-world context and it was an effective means to practice spoken Spanish in a non-

threatening environment. Students also appreciated conversing with their Dual University partners

about their service experiences. For instance, one student expressed that through these conversations

15 Even though there were 13 students enrolled in U1, only 12 students completed the end-of-course survey.


68

she was exposed to a completely new perspective about CSL: “It was nice to talk to other students who

were experiencing the course in a different way. My partner had unique ideas, so it was interesting.”

Nonetheless, many voiced frustration related to technological difficulties with the software and the

extra time it took to complete the videoconferences; these challenges could explain why both groups

rated the Skype task lower than the other course components.

Table 4.

Student self-assessment of achieving individual course goals (Question #9 on end-of-course-survey),

by institution

Response Group

U1 U2

n % n %

Yes 9 75% 12 80%

Some of them 2 17% 3 20%

No 1 8% 0 0%

The last course element assessed in Table 3 —“CoP collaboration”— and students’ evaluation

of meeting course goals (Table 4; Question #9, Appendix) targeted their overall impressions of the Dual

University Model and the CSL course itself. Once again, the results show that students were quite

satisfied with the cross-institutional collaboration and the CoP. For Questions #7 and #8 on the end-of-

course survey (see Appendix), students expressed that they benefitted from the affective support from

the CoP and that the cross-institutional coalition enhanced their CSL experience. One participant

claimed that the experience was “amazing” and that she had made “new friends” from the partner

institution. Students learned new information about other Hispanic communities in different

geographic regions (see Learning Objectives #1 and #4); another student stated that this experience gave

her more insights to the variety of Hispanic communities in the United States, which she could apply

in her future career in an area with a large Hispanic presence. Furthermore, students overwhelmingly

indicated that they had met their personal goals for the course (Table 4; Question #9, Appendix).

Together, these results indicate that, while improvements are necessary, students generally responded

well to the Dual University Model. The creation of a CoP was an effective approach to achieve the

learning objectives of “Spanish Service Learning” and to assist with the challenging aspects of CSL.

8. Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Directions

The qualitative and quantitative evidence indicates that the Dual University Model is a valuable

option for Spanish CSL. The many advantages to creating a CoP through CALL and Web 2.0

technologies outweighed the challenges, such as the additional time constraints that can burden

students and teachers of CSL. The collaborative activities provided students with guaranteed

opportunities for reflection, debriefing, and meaningful conversation in the L2, which are all critical

components of a successful CSL course. Students made gains in their perceived L2 abilities, which will

be an asset to them in the future as they communicate in Spanish in both academic and informal

contexts. Participants of “Spanish Service Learning” also relied on an expanded community during the

semester and formed a bona fide CoP; often those students who expressed frustration or despair through

the blog or Skype activities were comforted by someone that gave them encouragement or another

perspective because they, too, faced similar challenges. These students were grateful to have this

additional outlet of academic and emotional support provided by the colleagues at the partner

institution, which was also of benefit to the collaborating instructors.

It is important to note the limitations of the present investigation as well as weaknesses of the

implemented methodology. Regarding the former, even though it was not the focus of the present

study, it would be necessary to include a control group in the analysis (i.e., a traditional CSL in Spanish


69

course) in order to compare the effectiveness of the Dual University Model. Future investigations should

also incorporate pre- and post-experience tasks to measure changes in students’ attitudes toward CSL

and NSs as well as progress in productive skills. A final area that warrants investigation that was not

addressed in the present study is how a CoP shapes students’ cultural understanding of Hispanic

communities in the United States. Therefore, future investigations should focus on how students’

attitudes toward and cultural knowledge of Hispanic communities are impacted when a CoP

component is added to a CSL in Spanish course.

With respect to limitations of the Dual University Model itself, students commented that they

wished for more contact with NSs, despite increased opportunities for oral and written communication

with the established CoP, who were predominantly NNSs. If possible, the CoP could be expanded to

include the participation of NS supervisors or other members of the Hispanic community. This way, the

network could provide learners with more direct contact with NSs of Spanish and opportunities for

authentic interaction.

This article contributes to the body of knowledge of L2 CSL instruction in two important ways.

First, to the authors’ knowledge, no research exists regarding cross-institutional L2 CSL or the inclusion

of CALL and Web 2.0 technologies in L2 CSL to this degree. Even though this was a small-scale

endeavor, the results gleaned from this project show great promise for the use of these components in

L2 CSL instruction. Second, although Spanish is the L2 featured in this article, educators of different

languages (e.g., Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese) are encouraged to implement the Dual

University Model, provided that there are substantial local L2 communities in the areas of the

collaborating institutions. While it is acknowledged that the proposed model may not be suitable for all

L2 programs and adjustments are warranted based on student feedback documented in the present

investigation, the Dual University Model should be considered an advantageous strategy for CSL that

provides students with additional linguistic encounters and community support as they journey

through a CSL experience.


70

References

Abbott, A. R. (2010). Comunidades: Más allá del aula. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Abbott, A. R., & Lear, D. W. (2010). The connections goal area in Spanish community service learning:

Possibilities and limitations. Foreign Language Annals, 43(2), 231-245.

Abes, E. S., Jackson, G., & Jones, S. R. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of service-learning.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9, 5-17.American Council on the Teaching of Foreign

Languages. (2006). Standards for foreign language learning in the 21st century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in an online

environment. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 42-66.

Arnold, N., Ducate, L., Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2005). Using computer-mediated communication to establish

social and supportive environments in teacher education. CALICO Journal, 22, 537-566.

Barreneche, G. I. (2011). Language learners as teachers: Integrating service-learning and the advanced language

course. Hispania, 94(1), 103-120.

Barreneche, G. I., & Ramos-Flores, H. (2013). Integrated or isolated experiences?: Considering the role of service-

learning in the Spanish language curriculum. Hispania, 96(2), 215-228.

Beebe, R. M., & De Costa, E. M. (1993). Teaching beyond the classroom: The Santa Clara University Eastside

Project-Community service and the Spanish classroom. Hispania, 76(4), 884-891.

Bloom, M. (2008). From the classroom to the community: Building cultural awareness in first semester Spanish.

Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 21(2), 103-119.

Bouyssi, C. (2009). Using group-based videoconferencing for the development of intercultural competence in

telecollaborative learning. Les Cahiers de l'Apliut, 28(2), 63-74.

Bowley, E., & Meeropool, J. (2003). Service-learning in higher education: Trends, research, and resources.

Generator, 21(3), 12-16.

Butin, D. W. (2006). Disciplining service learning: Institutionalization and the case for community studies.

International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 57-64.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and

testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Carracelas-Juncal, C. (2013). When service-learning is not a “border-crossing” experience: Outcomes of a graduate

Spanish online course. Hispania, 96(2), 295-309.

Corporation for National & Community Service. (2011, March). Learn and serve America: Fact sheet. Retrieved

November 5, 2013, from http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/factsheet_lsa.pdf.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Ebacher, C. (2013). Taking Spanish into the community: A novice’s guide to service-learning. Hispania, 96(2), 397-

408.

Faerch, C., Haastrup, K., & Phillipson, R. (1984). Learner language and language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters 14.

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-

speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 127-150.

Fraga-Cañadas, C. (2011). Building communities of practice for foreign language teachers. Modern Language

Journal, 95(2), 296-300.

Furco, A. (2001). Advancing service-learning at research universities. New Directions for Higher Education Series,

114, 67-78.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second-language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London,

England: Edward Arnold.

Giles, D., Honnet, E., & Migliore, S. (1991). Research agenda for combining service and learning in the 1990s. Arlington,

VA: NSEE.

Grabois, H. (2007). Service-learning throughout the Spanish Curriculum: An inclusive and expansive theory-

driven model. In A. J. Wurr & J. Hellebrandt (Eds.), Learning the language of global citizenship: Service-

learning in applied linguistics (pp. 164-189). Bolton, Massachusetts: Anker.

Haneda, M. (2006). Classrooms as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 807-817.

Hellebrandt, J., & Jorge, E. (2013). The scholarship of community engagement: Advancing partnerships in Spanish

and Portuguese. Hispania, 96(2), 203-214.

Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), CALL for second

language classrooms (pp. 45-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in today's higher education. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in

higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 3-25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/factsheet_lsa.pdf


71

Jumpstart Service-Learning Resource Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved June 25, 2014, from

http://mgmoses.com/Jumpstart/SectionI/Introduction_SectionI.html.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Lafford, B. A. (2012). Languages for specific purposes in the United States in a global context: Commentary on

Grosse and Voght (1991) revisited. Modern Language Journal, 96(1), 1-27.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lear, D. W., & Abbott, A. R. (2008). Foreign language professional standards and CSL: Achieving the 5 C’s.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15, 76-86.

Lear, D. W., & Abbott, A. R. (2009). Aligning expectations for mutually beneficial relationships: The case of

Spanish language proficiency, cultural knowledge and professional skills.

Hispania 92(2), 301-312.

Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2004). Going virtual: Inviting guests into the classroom. In L. Lomicka & J. Cooke-

Plagwitz (Eds.), Teaching with technology (pp. 50-55). Boston: Thomson Heinle.

Long, D. R. (2003) Spanish in the community: Students reflect on Hispanic cultures in the United States. Foreign

Language Annals, 36, 223-232.

Long, D., & Macián, J. (2008). Preparing Spanish majors for volunteer service: Training and simulation in an

experiential course. Hispania, 9(1), 167-175.

Lord, G., & Harrington, S. (2013). Online communities of practice in second language phonological acquisition.

International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 34-55.

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in

a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.

Malkin, F. (2010). The effects of service learning participation in foreign language classes on students' attitudes towards the

Spanish language and culture and their language proficiency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York

University.

Montooth, L. J., & Fritz, C. A. (2006). Challenges of service-learning in Tennessee 4-H youth development: A

Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(3), 94-104.

Morgridge Center for Public Service (2012). Service-learning challenges and solutions for instructors. Retrieved

May 3, 2014, from http://www.morgridge.wisc.edu/programs/servicelearning/Faculty-Challenges.html.

Morris, F. A. (2001a). Serving the community and learning a foreign language: Evaluating a service-learning

programme. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 14(3), 244-255.

Morris, F. A. (2001b). Enhancing motivation and promoting positive attitudes toward second language learning

through community experience. In G. Bräuer (Ed.), Pedagogy of language learning in higher education: An

introduction (pp. 47-60). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Mullaney, J. (1999). Service-learning and language acquisition theory and practice. In J. Hellebrandt & L. Varona

(Eds.), Construyendo puentes (Building bridges) - Concepts and models for service-learning in Spanish (pp. 49-

60). New York, New York: Stylus Publishing.

Navarro, S. A. (2012). Conversing in Spanish at a seniors center: A brief experience of community-based and

foreign-language learning. Sino-US English Teaching, 9(10), 1590-1600.

Olazagasti-Segovia, E. (2004). Second language acquisition, academic service-learning, and learners’

transformation. In J. Hellebrandt, J. Arries, & L. Varona (Eds.), American Association of Teachers of Spanish

and Portuguese professional development series handbook, Volume 5 (pp. 5-16). Boston: Thompson Heinle.

Overfield, D. (1997). An approach to service in the foreign language classroom. Mosaic, 4(2), 11-13.

Pak, C. S. (2013). Service-learning for Students of intermediate Spanish: Examining multiple

roles of foreign language study. Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

(CSCTFL) Reports, 1-18. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from

http://www.csctfl.org/documents/2013Report/Chapter%207.pdf

Pellettieri, J. L. (2011). Measuring language-related outcomes of community-based learning in intermediate

Spanish courses. Hispania, 94(2), 285-302.

Petrov, L. A. (2013). A pilot study of service-learning in a Spanish heritage speaker course: Community

engagement, identity, and language in the Chicago area. Hispania, 96(2), 310-327.

Rabin, L. M. (2009). Language ideologies and the settlement house movement: A new history for service learning.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(2), 48-55.

Sánchez-López, L. (2013). Service-learning course design for languages for specific purposes programs. Hispania,

96(2), 383-396.

http://mgmoses.com/Jumpstart/SectionI/Introduction_SectionI.html

http://www.csctfl.org/documents/2013Report/Chapter%207.pdf


72

Salgado-Robles, F. (2014). Desarrollo de la competencia estratégica oral en español como segunda lengua

mediante el Aprendizaje-Servicio en el Bluegrass de Mexington. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 59, 125-

148

Toohey, K. (1998). “Breaking them up, taking them away”: ESL students in Grade 1. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 61-84.

Van Benthuysen, R. (2007). Communities of practice: A framework for second language learning research. Journal

of Bunkyo Gakuin University, 119-129.

Varas, P. (1999). Raising cultural awareness through service learning in Spanish culture and conversation:

Tutoring in the migrant education program in Salem. In J. Hellebrandt & L. Varona (Eds.), Construyendo

puentes (Building bridges) - Concepts and models for service- learning in Spanish (pp. 123-136). New York,

New York: Stylus Publishing.

Varona, L. (1999). From instrumental to interactive to critical knowledge through service learning in Spanish. In J.

Hellebrandt & L. Varona (Eds.), Construyendo puentes (Building bridges) - Concepts and models for service-

learning in Spanish (pp. 61-76). New York, New York: Stylus Publishing.

Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO

Journal, 29(3), 412-430.

Wehling, S. (1999). Service-learning and foreign language acquisition: Working with the migrant community. In

D. Alley & C. M. Cherry (Eds.), Dimension 99: Connection beyond the foreign language classroom (pp. 41-55).

Valdosta, GA: Southern Conference on Language Teaching.

Weldon, A., & Trautmann, G. (2003). Spanish and service-learning: Pedagogy and praxis. Hispania, 86(3), 574-83.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Wenger, E. (2013). Intro to communities of practice. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from

http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/06-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-

practice.pdf

Yusop, F. D., & Correia, A. P. (2013). The benefits and challenges of implementing service-learning in an

advanced instructional design and technology curricula: Implications for teaching professional courses.

The New Educational Review, 32(2), 220-232.

Zapata, G. (2011). The effects of community service learning projects on L2 learners’ cultural understanding.

Hispania, 94(1), 86-102.

http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/06-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf

http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/06-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf


73

Appendix A

End-of-Course Student Survey for “Spanish Service Learning”

1. What are your general feelings about blogging after maintaining a blog this semester?

2. Will you continue to blog (not on Classroom 2.0 necessarily)? Why or why not?

3. I enjoyed reading my peers’ blogs and responding to them; it helped me reflect on my experience

in this course:

1 2 3 4 5

1=strongly disagree 3=neutral 5=strongly agree

4. What were the benefits of blogging in this class? What were some of the drawbacks?

5. What were the benefits of Skype? What were some of the drawbacks?

6. I enjoyed Skyping with my U1/U2 partner; it helped me reflect on my experience in this course:

1 2 3 4 5


7. In general, collaborating with and having the support of the CoP helped enhance my experience in

this course:

1 2 3 4 5


8. Other comments about collaborating with the other institution?

9. Did you accomplish your goal(s) for the class (i.e., yes, some of them, no)? Why or why not?

10. Any other relevant comments?

expanding the community and enhancing the experience: the...

Documents